The victims of ISIS*: The Paris Attacks in an International Context (*so-called)

The events in Paris... I shudder to think of those poor, ordinary, innocent people going about their daily business, enjoying their Friday night not knowing the brutality that was about to ensue.

What I know some friends are pointing out, however, is that this display of aggressive action by so-called-ISIS is a daily occurrence for those living in Syria and other parts of the Middle East. For these people, the sound and threat of bombs, gunfire and general violence is normality not anomaly. Indeed, they have endured five years of this.

In a bid to prevent the inevitable right-wing attempt to use the attacks to fuel anti-immigration / anti-refugee policies and also the media's exclusive focus on Paris I'd like to encourage as many of my friends to share articles highlighting the shared story of ALL victims of ISIS, whether from Europe, the Middle East or beyond. And where possible donate money or materials (even if you can only spare a small amount!) to the UN Refugee Agency or other charities. (Does anyone have any thoughts on which agency might be the most effective to support?)

This is not to demote the French experience. We should continue to mourn the loss of life there yesterday but stress the solidarity between these victims and those of the Middle East. How is the Syrian trying to break across borders in order to get away from ISIS violence in his homeland any different from the Parisian escaping through windows at the Bataclan? By helping and sympathising with ALL innocent victims across the world, not just those closest to home, we have the best strategy for undermining so-called-ISIS.

Donations:

http://donate.unhcr.org/international/syria

An example of the equally worthy headlines being neglected by the BBC and media for focus on France:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/dozens-dead-isil-claims-attacks-iraqi-shias-151113165046854.html

Why I am rejoining the Lib Dems (yes you heard that right)

So after three years of flying a little lost and solo, I have decided to once more join the Liberal Democrats​. You may find this surprising in light of last night's events.

In order to understand why I am once more joining, I must first explain why I initially left. I did not leave because I was ashamed of the Lib Dems joining Cameron in coalition. Joining Labour would not have provided enough seats to form a stable government and a rainbow would have been risky, especially in a time of recession. Furthermore, the Tories were the largest party as the electorate willed; would it have been right to ignore this? So yes, we uncomfortably climbed into bed with the Conservatives... And we tempered them in a way I think the country will only now appreciate, when faced with five years of stand-alone Tory government. 

The info-graphic I have attached highlights just a few of the positive contributions we made as a party whilst in government, such as pushing for same-sex marriage, lifting over 3 million of the lowest earners out of income tax, cutting tax breaks for the richest and establishing the pupil premium. Yes we had to break promises, such as that of tuition fees,* but as the junior partner in a coalition, 1/5th the size of the other party we had no choice. Coalition is a synonym for compromise and we were always going to be making more than them. Yet we shouldn't underestimate the simple ‘preventative presence’ the Lib Dems had on potential Conservative policies.   

“If our losses today are part payment for every family that is more secure because of a job we helped to create, every person with depression who is treated with a compassion they deserve, every child who does a little better in school, every apprentice with a long and rewarding career to look forward to, every gay couple who know that their love is worth no less than anyone else’s and every pensioner with a little more freedom and dignity in retirement then I hope at least our losses can be endured with a little selfless dignity too.”

(Info-graphic: http://www.markpack.org.uk/libdem-infographic/ )

The reason I left was not because I disagreed with Lib Dem involvement in government but because of an issue within the party. Very quickly, I, and other local members of the Lancaster and Fleetwood constituency, perceived that enough wasn't being done by the top levels of the party to reassure our grass root supporters, whether members or non-members, that positive achievements in government were being made. Instead, the media fed the public the story of betrayal, a story that still hangs over the party today. It was essentially a PR failure. We knew that positive changes were being made but the electorate were left oblivious.

As a result, in the 2011 council elections we lost all five formerly safe seats. These were seats long held by hardworking individuals with a strong commitment to improving the local community. These seats were lost because of the unpopularity of the party at the national level. It was hard to stomach especially since I, and others, believed this unpopularity could have been better combated by the central party. Additionally, for me personally, the final blow was the outcome of the AV Referendum in 2011 which sealed my disillusionment with politics generally. First-past-the-post is a painful joke for a country claiming to be democratic and I struggle to see how the majority of the country continually fails to see this.

So why now do I re-join? I re-join because the Lib Dems have always been the party I closest align to in terms of values. It is this that has kept them my vote if not my membership these last three years. I re-join now because last night’s wipe-out gives the party a clean slate in terms of leadership. Tim Farron offers the party a new lease of life; he remains untainted by the party's time in government and attuned to its grassroots. I re-join now because it is time for the party to regain its independence and rebuild trust at the local level where we work best. I re-join now because I want to restore England’s faith in the center left.  

~

* And have we really broken this? In 2010 we had that policy because we didn't want socioeconomic background to become an impediment to young people going to university. Under the new arrangements this is still true, the poorest students are supported by the loan and grant system, enabling anyone to go to University. Furthermore under the new scheme you pay for your degree in line with how much you benefit from it afterwards. And you don't pay anything until you earn over 21,000. To me it seems like a fair and progressive compromise.